I have read over the past few months about some outrageous behaviour by Key and National in general, but also that Key is polling very highly. So, what is it that's keeping him high in the polls? Someone obviously likes him (or National), so what is it they like?

A total lack of alternatives. Who can we elect in his place? David Shearer?

I'd have to agree about certain people falling hook, line, and sinker for the whole "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" thing. Is it really to do with what Chris Trotter calls "Waitakere Man", or is it a lot more complex than that?

I suspect also we've been affected by the Great Recession enough for the "battlers" to tread water and blame those below them for the mistakes of the banksters, but not affected enough to blame the banksters since NZ is not directly exposed that much to Wall Street and the City of London.

It's interesting to see even the most National friendly journalists (Tracy Watkin and much of the DomPost) turning on the govt. Interesting that through policy after policy that was knowingly unpopular with the public, this change has come only when journalists' own business is threatened (let's face it, journalists are among the few groups likely to be to be spied on, as has been proved again with the Ambrose revelation).

And could the huge media stink that has come to pass on the GCSB, an issue most Kiwis care little about, be the reason for the long expected drop in the polls for National? Do we really want to entrust to journalists so much influence over the political direction of NZ?

Interesting that through policy after policy that was knowingly unpopular with the public, this change has come only when journalists' own business is threatened (let's face it, journalists are among the few groups likely to be to be spied on, as has been proved again with the Ambrose revelation).

"First they came..."

And could the huge media stink that has come to pass on the GCSB, an issue most Kiwis care little about, be the reason for the long expected drop in the polls for National? Do we really want to entrust to journalists so much influence over the political direction of NZ?

There are signs that the GCSB issue is breaking out of the Beltway and into public discourse. If Shearer and Norman - and especially Shearer - can get their shit together, they'll successfully turn it into a wedge issue. That means painting mass surveillance as digital panty-drawer rummaging and cyber-McCarthyism, to the point where it becomes the new No Nukes.

Then again, the ramifications of nuclear warhead misuse are vaporisingly obvious. With mass surveillance, it's a lot more polarising and jargon-filled. And I suspect not everyone out there is aware of Orwell's 1984, or if they are, they think it's a training manual.

To vote against his ability to set the rules is like denying yourself the opportunity to do whatever he did and get $50 million like he did.

That does seem to be the case.

Although it doesn't take much reading to discover that he made his money by being the man with the least conscience on the trading floor. Pretty much the definition of the psychopath executive. Fortunately there are very few people willing to give up that much humanity to simply gain power, unfortunately, he has gained power.

I have to disagree. The TV political teams seem to spend an inordinate amount of time finding something embarrasing to say about the opposition(s). At the same time as the government is making genuinely bad law the stories we hear on the news are all about how stupid this or that was from opposition politician x or y.

I get that actually explaining why legislation is bad is boring and well, hard work, but I'm pretty sure some of those journalists are paid a lot more than I am and hard work isn't too much to ask from those who are meant to watch over government.

And let's not forget this detail either -- the whole incident occurred in a public place to which the PM had invited the media ... the whole thing stinks. As the headline says here, It is worse than we think.

The different responses that I have got from the few National supporters that I have ever encountered are :- "It's nothing the other lot wouldn't do if they had the chance" (arch-cynic)- "They are better for the economy" (head-in-the-sand)- "There is no other option" (Labour a bunch of muppets)- "The only way to keep the Greens out of power" (Greens a bunch of loonies)

I think that there are a lot of people out there that hate the bureaucracy and OSH restrictions that have come into existence during the previous Labour government's tenure, and believe that it is all their fault so will vote National forever more. Yet not noticing that National government has introduced plenty of "nanny-state" policy of its own.

There are individual journalists who would deliver stories to us that their editors and producers are not permitted to fund. The whole system is dangerously politicized, and how much worse it could have become without blogs such as these and the internettedness we now inhabit.

It is sometimes hard to believe that the people waving through the GCSB bill are the ones who totally lost their shit over energy-efficiency standards for lightbulbs in 2008.

Yeah, but now it's not a woman bossing me around, so nanny-state no longer applies, right?

That, and of course that nanny state was a talking point meme specifically chosen by the right media operatives (I'm aware of how that's loony language, but how else can you describe them) to dogwhistle for the sexism, but they're in power now, so it's "shut up about the government, harp on about Shearer's lack of support/competence."

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it's pretty sickening how effective it seems to be.

That’s what puzzles me about this. Surely a judge had to issue that warrant, what judge in his right mind would issue a warrant for a fishing expidition into what was clearly a trivial case at best?

Which would seem to underline the need for extra judicial advocacy in the issuing of such warrants.

The Ambrose case seems also to make the point that the innocent have everything to fear: Which at a personal level invites the question should we all encrypt and at a public level what would this mean for society?